Posted on 01/03/2007 9:22:01 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
(AP) BOSTON -- A proposed constitutional amendment to halt gay marriage is a step closer to making the 2008 Massachusetts ballot, but the governor-elect said Wednesday that the fight to preserve the state's unique same-sex marriage rights will continue.
Lawmakers voted Tuesday to advance the proposed amendment, which would define marriage as the union between a man and woman.
The measure still needs approval in the next legislative session before it can appear on the ballot, and both supporters and opponents of gay marriage promised to step up their campaigns.
"This fight isn't over," said Democratic Gov.-elect Deval Patrick, who opposes the amendment.
Patrick had been out of the country until Monday, and he had conducted a furious round of last-minute lobbying to try to prevent the vote Tuesday. If the Legislature had recessed Tuesday, the final day of its session, without voting, amendment supporters who had collected more than 120,000 signatures would have essentially had to start over.
"This is democracy in action. It's not a vengeance campaign. It's not a hate campaign. It's just an opportunity for the people to vote," said Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which backs the amendment.
Gov. Mitt Romney, an opponent of gay marriage and possible candidate for the GOP 2008 presidential nomination, called the vote to advance the proposed amendment an important step on the path to the ballot box.
"This is a huge victory for the people of Massachusetts," he said.
About 8,000 same-sex couples have wed in Massachusetts since the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that the state Constitution guarantees gays the right to marry. A few other states offer civil unions with similar rights for gay couples, but only Massachusetts allows gay marriage.
"There are thousands and thousands of supporters who are committed to ensuring that the rights of a few are never put to a public popularity ballot," said Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality, a gay rights group.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, who had avoided calling the proposed amendment to a vote last fall, said its wording discriminates against gays.
One state lawmaker, Rep. Philip Travis, said the Legislature was simply upholding its duty to respond to a petition calling for a statewide vote on the issue.
The state's high court had admonished the Legislature for avoiding a vote on the citizen petition last fall but said it had no power to intervene.
The amendment needs to be approved by 50 members of the current Legislature and 50 members of the new Legislature before going to voters on the 2008 ballot. Tuesday's vote fulfills the first part of that process.
Supporters of gay marriage say the tide is in their favor.
Seventeen lawmakers who voted Tuesday won't be returning in the new legislative session, including some of the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage. Gay marriage supporters say they will pick up a total of seven votes to block the proposed amendment in the new session, according to Solomon.
Opps,never mind.Clinton Administration.
Massachusetts ranked 45th in economic growth in 2005 according to the Federal Reserve. That's a great record, isn't it? To say positively nothing of the zillions of people fleeing the Bay State, and the very good possibility that Massachusetts may lose a US House seat because of the exodus.
Gee, I think sustaining homo marriage just might turn the whole deal around. Don't you?
Deval does.
What a donut.
Hey Mass Gov. Marraige aint a right you stinkin dolt- Gay people ALREADY have ALL the RIGHTS that anyone else has- Marriage is a privelege NOT a right!!! http://sacredscoop.com
Well he just cemented the former Catholic priest vote.
Classy real classy.
".... committed to ensuring that the rights of a few are never put to a public popularity ballot ...."
Marriage is a RIGHT, is it?
Then why wasn't it included in "the Bill of Rights"?
For over 200 years, the US prospered without anyone suggesting marriage was a "right". Suddenly, within the last 3 years, homosexual groups are screaming the marriage is a full "right", like free speech or voting.
It's all a bit too much to take seriously.
Because you knew what I was before you elected me. You knew my position on gays and Illegal aliens and you still elected me.
Contempt is what the voters of Mass. deserve.
Yeah, I know. Just a little homage to the classic artistic sensibilities our homosexual friends.
Oh, and the word STOP yielded few alternatives when Photoshopping...
You got it, Jackie.
Now that the Democrats control the corner(governor's) office AND the legislature, the real screwing of the public will begin soon.
But then, the public keeps electing these creeps.
I left MA in 1977. Never regretted it...and, btw, I worked on staff in the state senate.
Nice job photo shopping!!
I honestly thought one of those wack jobs had made that sign.
I have seen far worse from these salami jockeys, believe me.
See the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's why.
Whether or not marriage is a "right," its exlusion from the list of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights is no argument for claiming that it isn't.
Now there's a real shocker! /sarc
Troulble is they are taking kooky beliefs with them.
That's very funny!
"Whether or not marriage is a "right," its exlusion from the list of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights is no argument for claiming that it isn't."
It's a moot point anyway. No citizen of this country can legally marry a member of the same sex.
OK. I'll bite. It is currently legal in Massachusetts (for Mass residents, anyway.) The Mass Supreme Court greatly over-stepped its bounds in ramming gay marriage down the citizens' throats, by making law it has no power to make.
But as it stands in Massachusetts, gay people can and do get married, with all the attendant legal rights and privileges arising therefrom.
So what do you mean that no citizen of this country can legally marry a member of the same sex.
What my point was is that no one group has any more rights related to marriage than any other group, except maybe in Massachusetts. Up until the MA courts had to get all activist, my statement would have been correct, so roll with me on this. :)
Admittedly, I am not familiar with the inner-workings of the new MA laws. I'm not sure what this means for heterosexual same-sex couples who want to take avatage of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.